Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion to vary the order of the Senate of 20 June 2018 relating to consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter; namely, a motion to vary the order of the Senate of 20 June 18 relating to consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018.

I am moving this motion in order to give senators the opportunity to suspend standing orders to debate a motion to, frankly, remedy what was passed yesterday in this chamber.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Yes, we will. I'll take the interjection from Senator Macdonald. We will keep trying it again, because we actually believe that the Senate should do its job. The Senate should do its job, mate, which is actually to seek to amend legislation and debate it, not to act like an arm of the executive. We were sent here to legislate, and yesterday the government, along with their mates Senator Rex Patrick and Centre Alliance, who appear to roll over—every time Senator Cormann asks Senator Patrick to jump, he just says, 'How high?' He's a Lib. He is nothing but a Lib. Senator Rex Patrick is nothing but a Lib who is happy to walk in here and do what Senator Nick Xenophon would never have done. Senator Storer put a statement out yesterday, and it was very measured, I would have to say, but it was also a statement which told the truth, which is that Senator Nick Xenophon would never have done what Senator Patrick agreed with Senator Cormann to do, and that is to do over the Senate. This is $144 billion worth of tax cuts that they don't want to debate. This is supposed to be one of the centrepieces of your economic plan, and you don't even have the spine to debate it properly. You come in here and you try an ambush in order to make sure the Senate can't debate amendments. What an extraordinary proposition—that we are sent here in this place, but we want 30 minutes debate on $144 billion worth of tax cuts! What I find extraordinary—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We find this extraordinary!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister, who is a serial misleader of the parliament, continues to interject. But we'll come to you later.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wong, there is a point of order. I will call Senator Birmingham and then come to you, Senator O'Sullivan.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, that is a clear reflection upon another member of this Senate. Senator Wong obviously knows better than that and should clearly withdraw.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, as always, I will withdraw if you ask me to. The minister herself has conceded that she misled on five occasions.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Senator Birmingham, in my view, and having had advice confirming it from the Clerk, that is not a personal imputation on a senator, but I will remind all senators that, particularly on days like today, we should step back from personal imputations or impugning other senators. Otherwise, today will get more difficult than it needs to be.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion I am seeking to move to suspend standing orders—a motion the government doesn't even want to debate; pretty interesting, isn't it?—would enable this Senate to properly consider the message from the House of Representatives. That's all. From the roaring and the interjections that we saw just previously—and with Senator Macdonald and Senator Cash getting all hot under the collar again—you would think that we were talking about something outrageous. This is parliamentary democracy. There are two chambers. We pass legislation; they pass legislation. We get to consider the amendments that they've made or whether or not they've accepted ours. It's the parliamentary system. What this Leader of the Government in the Senate did yesterday was prevent debate on the message because he wants the political timetable, and that's what so objectionable about all of this. The motion moved was not because there was some time sensitivity or the government had to get it up today or there couldn't be further Senate debate because there had been hours of it, because there hadn't. We'd given up Tuesday night. There'd been, I think, 45 minutes of committee time or maybe a little bit more. It wasn't because we'd been filibustering or there'd been lengthy debate. Senator Mathias Cormann did over the Senate because he wants a political timetable, and that is objectionable. That is not the way this place should be run.

This is an important piece of legislation. We should be able to debate and amend what the House sends back. We accept, of course, that the government has the majority in the House; that's why they're on that side. But they do not have the right to prevent this Senate from debating and amending the message or the legislation which comes back from the House, yet that is what this Senate did yesterday. I'd implore Senator Hinch and others on the crossbench who may be against us on the tax cuts—I think you're wrong in policy on that and wrong in merit, but I accept that's your decision—why do over the Senate to enable Senator Cormann to deliver on Malcolm Turnbull's political timetable? There is no reason why this Senate should not have the opportunity to properly debate and amend the message when it comes back. No reason was put yesterday and no reason has been given. The only reason is the political strategy that Senator Cormann is desperate to deliver on for a desperate Prime Minister ahead of the by-elections.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will oppose this suspension motion, and that is because the Senate has spoken on this matter. The Senate is in charge of its own destiny. Senator Wong may try to suggest that, somehow, I did over the Senate. No. The government put a proposition to the Senate which a majority of senators supported. A majority of senators want to get on with things. A majority of senators support income tax relief for all working Australians. And a majority of senators understand that Bill Shorten and the Labor Party wants to stand in the way of income tax relief for all working Australians. Let me read from an editorial in one of our daily newspapers:

It's official. The Labor Party has now forgotten—or is simply apathetic towards—the aspirational class of Australians that Labor treasurer Paul Keating created in the 1980s by modernising the Australian economy and creating opportunity for working-class people.

The Labor Party today is selling out working-class people. This is a government that is standing up for working-class people. We want to deliver income tax relief to hardworking families, and we want to ensure that working-class people have the best possible opportunity to get ahead in the future, by making sure that the businesses that employ them have the best possible opportunity to compete with businesses in other parts of the world.

We have a Leader of the Opposition who is quite happy to put businesses in the United States, France, the UK and all around the world at a competitive advantage over businesses here in Australia. He is quite happy to help businesses in other parts of the world take investment and jobs away from Australia, because that is the implication of the sorts of policies the current leader of the Labor Party is pursuing.

What we have in front of the parliament and what has been debated intently for some time now is a proposal to reduce income taxes for all working families around Australia, prioritising low- and middle-income earners but, yes, also addressing bracket creep. The Labor Party used to recognise that bracket creep is bad for families and is bad for the economy. Bracket creep is a drag on economic growth. The Labor Party knows this. The Labor Party is not opposing this because it thinks it's the wrong thing to do. The Labor Party is opposing this because it believes that its politics of envy, its undergraduate, socialist politics of envy agenda, will win it votes. We are pursuing policies to support aspiration. The Labor Party is pursuing the politics of envy because it believes that somehow that is going to help Bill Shorten get into the Lodge.

We continue to steadfastly progress implementation of our plan for a stronger economy and more jobs. We are very grateful to the crossbench for having overwhelmingly supported the government in relation to this. We're very grateful to the Senate, which determined its destiny in relation to this bill yesterday. This is just a traditional attempt at a repechage by the Labor Party. The Labor Party is not happy that the Senate yesterday decided to support the government.

Let me tell you, on the 188 occasions when the Labor Party in government, with Senator Wong as senior minister, guillotined—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We never did this.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She said, 'We never did this.'! Let me tell you, I had to vote on bills, on lots of legislation, on which we didn't have one minute of debate under Labor—188 bills were guillotined through the Senate. Fifty-three bills in one week were guillotined through the Senate—all amendments and all remaining stages in one vote—many bills without even a single word of debate spoken. The President was very generous to the Labor Party yesterday by giving the Labor Party way more leeway than President Hogg ever did. President Hogg never let us speak for even one minute to argue. Once we were in one of your 188 guillotines we were not allowed to say a single word. You took great pleasure in ramming 188 bills through, using the majority vote that you had with the Greens.

Let me just say that this is an important bill. Everybody in the community knows that this is all about Labor trying to stand in the way of income tax relief for hardworking families. Working Australians are grateful to those crossbench senators who have decided to support the government, to back up the government, in making sure that we can get this very important economic reform through the parliament in a timely fashion.

Tim Storer (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is the house of review, and its job is to thoroughly scrutinise each and every bill brought before it. The motion moved by the government yesterday did eliminate debate on the Personal Income Tax Plan. It gave barely 30 minutes for debate on amendments to the biggest tax cuts in Australia's history, and it should not have met with majority support. It goes against the principles of accountability and transparency, which are of paramount importance and which were the key fundamental plank of the Nick Xenophon Team, upon which the Centre Alliance senators now sit in this chamber, so I am very disappointed in that action yesterday by them. It is still unclear what their position is. I believe that they should be very clear in terms of their support for stage 3 of the tax plan.

The crossbench in particular should be holding the government to account through ensuring enough time is given to debate amendments. I had proposed several amendments to the income tax bill that I did not have the full opportunity to speak to. My proposal, if I had had time to further discuss it, would have saved nearly $100 billion, compared with the government's plan, while still extending targeted tax relief to low- and middle-income earners, and these savings would help us return to surplus sooner, pay down debt quicker and free up money to spend on critical social and infrastructure programs. That's why I am speaking in favour of this motion. I urge all other crossbenchers to do likewise.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's not mince words here. If we, as a Senate, do not pass the suspension of standing orders—and, as a result, we're unable to debate or amend this bill, and we see the passage of all three stages of the government's income tax package—we'll see the Centre Alliance party, Senator Patrick and Senator Griff, strip services from the state of South Australia so that millionaires can get an extra seven grand in their back pockets. That's what the impact of this vote will mean. It means that South Australia's going to lose $140 million in public services for every $100 million that goes to the wealthiest South Australians. It means people in South Australia will languish longer on a public hospital waiting list. It means students in South Australian public schools will be faced with more up-front costs. It means people in South Australia who can't find a job and are forced to live in poverty on Newstart won't see an increase and won't be able to put a roof over their head. It means that the loss of precious biodiversity will continue apace in this country because we'll be stripping money from the environment department that looks after our precious biodiversity. That's what this tax cut package means.

I look to Senator Hanson. If Senator Hanson and One Nation support this entire package, as they are proposing to do, they're saying to people in New South Wales, in Queensland, in Western Australia and in the states that they represent that their children shouldn't get access to Medicare-funded dental care; that regional hospital waiting lists will increase; that people who are sitting in a GP clinic waiting to see a doctor will end up with higher out-of-pocket costs; and that we're going to see infrastructure in our cities and our regions continue to be unfunded. Why? It's so that Senator Hanson and Senator Georgiou can get a massive tax cut—an extra $11,000 in the pocket of Senator Hanson and an extra $11,000 in the pocket of Senator Georgiou. That's what this means.

The definition of One Nation's battlers is now millionaires, politicians, executives and bankers getting an extra $11,000 and more in their back pocket. That's the new definition of a battler according to Senator Hanson. Senator Hanson thinks that, because we've got bankers in front of a royal commission battling to save their industry, they're the new battlers. These are the new battlers in Australia. They're the bankers; they're the politicians and the executives.

I say to Senator Hanson: don't believe the front pages of the papers. Don't believe the fact that you've been bought off by this government. You're being manipulated and, just like the senior executives of News Limited, you all stand to gain from this tax package. What you're going to see as a result of the passage of stages 1, 2, and 3 of this bill are higher medical costs. That's going to eat up the so-called $10 a week that people on low and middle incomes will receive. It means the children in public schools will have crowded classrooms. It means that, if an organisation like Telstra is privatised and loses 8,000 jobs, those people who are going to be put on the scrap heap and be forced onto Newstart aren't going to be able to put food on the table and a roof over their head.

This is now being presented to us as an all-or-nothing vote. Senator Griff and Senator Patrick from Centre Alliance say, 'We don't want to stand in the way of tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes.' The consequence of that is that we're going to give a tax cut to millionaires and bankers, and we're going to strip away public services in South Australia. Well, that will be on Pauline Hanson's and One Nation's head and on the heads of Centre Alliance.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation party are frauds. They are here saying one thing to the ordinary people of regional Queensland and New South Wales, but they're in here doing the bidding of the Liberal Party. They're doing the bidding of bankers, CEOs, executives and politicians. Senator Hanson says, 'We're out there in the community representing ordinary people.' Let me tell you, ordinary people don't earn over $200,000 like you do, Senator Hanson, and won't end up with extra money in their back pocket.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't help but observe that, among those opposite, there is a condition that we can diagnose as procedural amnesia. It's important to have an institutional memory in this place. The truth is that sometimes in this chamber, when it comes to procedural manners, you win some and you lose some. That is the nature of democracy. In any forum, you've got to get 50 per cent plus one to carry your proposition, and in this place yesterday we got 50 per cent plus one. So, when those opposite are reflecting on the manner in which this important legislation is being dealt with, they are reflecting on the chamber itself. They are reflecting on the collective majority decision of senators in this place. The will of the Senate is that this personal income tax cut legislation be dealt with in the manner that is occurring. That is the will of this place—nothing more, nothing less.

As we extensively recounted yesterday, those opposite used a guillotine on 188 occasions during the period when they were last in government. To date, during the period that we have been in government, we have used the guillotine on four occasions—188 as opposed to four. There are times when it is appropriate to ask the Senate to facilitate the conclusion of the consideration of legislation. That's something that we have done sparingly and it's something we have done on this occasion. It's also something that will be manifested today when those on the other side of the building send a message to this place after they have considered the legislation before them. This is an appropriate expression of the will of the Senate in a procedural sense.

We on this side of the chamber want to facilitate Australians keeping more of what is theirs. That's the proposition: we want Australians to keep more of what is theirs. Those opposite want government to take more and keep more from the Australian people.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Those opposite have indicated that, if we are successful in passing the legislation, they will seek to repeal elements of our Personal Income Tax Plan. But we all know they don't want to repeal just parts of our Personal Income Tax Plan; they ultimately will want to repeal the lot. The Labor Party, ultimately, will want to repeal the lot because they don't believe that when you cut taxes you're giving back to the Australian people what is theirs. They don't believe that you're allowing the Australian people to keep more of what is theirs, more of what they have earned. Those opposite believe that every dollar in the economy belongs to the government—that's certainly Senator Cameron's view of the world—and that the government, on occasion, will benevolently allow members of the community to have some of the government's money.

Those opposite see a tax cut as an expenditure measure. They see tax cuts as an expenditure measure because they believe government owns every dollar, and a benevolent government, on occasion, might allow the community to keep some of what they earn. That is the proposition of those opposite. That is the belief system of those opposite. That is the world view of those opposite—that everything belongs to the government and, on occasion, it might throw the community a bone. That's not our view. Our view is that members of the community work hard, they earn their money and they should keep their money. They should make a contribution to the community, but they should keep an appropriate portion of what they earn.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a motion that Senator Wong has moved to give the Senate the opportunity to reconsider its responsibilities and obligations to the Australian people in regard to $144 billion worth of expenditure. It is true, as Senator Cormann says, that the Senate is in charge of its own destiny. That's exactly the point about this motion that Senator Wong has moved. This is a chance for the Senate to reconsider what has been a fundamental error of judgement yesterday.

In the circumstances we're in now—I think we've had 16 senators move out of this chamber since the last election, so nearly 25 per cent of the Senate has been rolled over since the last election—it's not surprising that you would have a situation where so little understanding would be evident of the responsibilities of senators to the Australian people and to the parliament of this country. I say that deliberately. The parliament of Australia consists of two chambers, not one. In terms of the responsibilities of the government chamber, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, we have traditionally argued that the Senate has the opportunity to debate legislation in this chamber, where we actually have to take responsibility for the detail of legislation and engage in a proper debate about the consequences of government legislation, particularly in a circumstance where we have an unfunded and, as Senator Hanson has said herself, unaffordable $144 billion worth of expenditure over two election cycles.

I heard this morning the proposition from Senator Patrick that suggests, 'The Labor Party can fix up our mistakes later on'—that somehow or other the Labor Party, when it gets elected, will reverse these arrangements. I think Senator Storer made the point yesterday that once these things are actually legislated they are extremely difficult to undo. I make that point first of all. I've seen the Greens in the past make terrible errors of judgement about climate change legislation, for instance. You can't assume that even reasonable, rational people will do the right thing when it comes to actually fixing mistakes in this country. Where would we be if the Greens had actually done the right thing when it came to climate change legislation? So we know the consequences of moving into this chamber and expecting that other people will fix things when errors have been made. We can't assume that. That's the point in this regard.

Senator Paterson also said that people would be denied a tax cut from July. Well, the reality is this: we in the Labor Party support people on low incomes getting immediate tax relief; but this measure is in fact a rebate. There will be an election between now and the opportunity for people to secure a return on their taxation through a rebate in the forthcoming financial year.

The real question is whether or not One Nation is going to return to its historic roots. Senator Hanson came from the Liberal Party and has gone back to the Liberal Party. She is nothing more than the lickspittle of the Liberal Party. She is nothing more than an agent of the Liberal Party. She seeks to represent the battlers of this country by sucking up to the Liberal Party. That's what it amounts to. We have here a clear, unadulterated case where Senator Hanson has now demonstrated that she is the running dog of the Liberal Party when it comes to the issue of defending the interests of the great multinationals, as she says, the great millionaires of this country, of adopting the view of the Point Piper millionaires that has dominated this government, the merchant bankers of this government who now dominate the politics of this country by ensuring that Senator Hanson has become, as I say, the lickspittle of the Liberal Party.

We have a circumstance where the Senate has this opportunity to correct—

An honourable senator: Knuckle draggers!

Well, they are knuckle draggers. They are absolutely knuckle draggers. We have a chance to fix the mistake of yesterday and for the Senate to fulfil its obligations. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will give the Australian Labor Party one thing. The Labor Party has demonstrated how committed they are to higher taxes on Australian workers today. That's what we see here. How committed are the Australian Labor Party and Mr Bill Shorten to stopping tax relief for Australians? How committed are they?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator Wong, on a point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on direct relevance: the only issue for debate is the procedural one. That's the first point. The second is: you know—so stop misleading—that the point of difference is tax cuts for high-income earners in six years.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, please resume your seat. That is not a point of order.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong, resume your seat. There's no point of order.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When Senator Wong and the Labor Party don't get their way, what do we get? We get stunts. We get delaying tactics. We get insults. She directed insults at Senator Patrick. Senator Carr directed insults at Senator Hanson. There are plenty of other insults that come, because, if they don't get their way, there's a great big dummy spit. And, my, what a dummy spit we see from the Labor Party! They cannot accept the fact that the majority of the Australian Senate want to give tax relief to Australian workers. They cannot accept it. And then we get threats. Senator Wong sits there and she says to Senator Cormann across the table, 'We will ensure you will regret this.' That's it: the threats of the Australian Labor Party—threats, insults, stunts, delaying tactics and no principle, because for them it's just all about the game. It's all about the game of delaying the government's agenda.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left! Senators Wong, Cameron and Lines!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They don't give a rat's if Australians pay more tax. Well, we want to ensure hardworking Australians get the tax relief they deserve. That's what we're committed to doing. This Senate has decided, and so it ought to happen.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I put the question, I'm going to ask senators to at least count to 10 after they're called to order before they continue their interjections. At least pause momentarily. The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.